What Type Of Marriage Was Joseph's With Fanny Alger?

[bcuzbcuz]

12 hours ago, ERayR said:

Perhaps she got the details right or perhaps they all got them wrong.  You and I have absolutely no way of knowing.  Our choice is do you believe Joseph was a prophet called by God.

Whether Joseph was a prophet of God or not isn't really the question. Joseph was caught, by Emma, in the barn with Fanny in what some have called a "compromising situation". We know that Emma was not pleased that Joseph was alone in the barn with their servant girl. The details are murky.

Joseph later said that Fanny was a plural wife granted to him. Emma threw Fanny out of the house and Fanny, a short time after, married a man that she stayed married to and to whom she bore many children.

Joseph could have been a prophet and have done wrong. The Bible has many such stories. Joseph being a prophet does not mean that he was incapable of doing wrong. 

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

You asked for two CFR's for my claim, and I answered them. You can't just say your heard or read it once and to throw out such a claim about Joseph about Indian women like that and not tell anyone from whence it came, as it impurnes not only Joseph, but of the Church leaders in 1831. So again please CFR, I answered yours, you show me the same respect. 

Full Text of Revelation claimed to be given to the Saints during the "Mission to the Lamanites":

• 2. REVELATION RECEIVED WEST OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, ON 17 JULY 1831

      In July 1831 after the arrival of Joseph Smith, Jr., and others in Jackson County, Missouri, plans were made to preach to the Native Americans. Smith received a directive on intermarriage with the Indians. At a later date William W. Phelps wrote, evidently from memory, what he claimed was part or the substance of this revelation:
  Part — of a revelation by Joseph Smith Jun. given over the boundary, west of Jackson Co. Missouri, on Sunday morning, July 17, 1831, when Seven Elders, viz: Joseph Smith Jun. Oliver Cowdery, W.W. Phelps, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe, Ziba Peterson and Joshua Lewis united their hearts in prayer, in a private place, to inquire of the Lord who should preach the first sermon to the remnants of the Lamanites and Nephites, and the people of that Section, that should assemble that day in the Indian country, to hear the gospel, and the revelations according to the Book of Mormon.  Among the company, there being neither pen, ink or paper, Joseph [Smith, Jr.] remarked that the Lord could preserve his words as he had ever done, till the time appointed, and proceeded:

      Verily, verily, saith the Lord your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world, ye can not discerne [discern] with your natural eyes, the design and the purpose of your Lord and your God, in bringing you thus far into the wilderness for a trial of your faith, and to be especial witnesses, to bear testimony of this land, upon which the zion of God shall be built up in the last days, when it is redeemed.

      Verily, inasmuch as ye are united in calling upon my name to know my will concerning who shall preach to the inhabitants that shall assemble this day to learn what new doctrine you have to teach them, you have done wisely, for so did the prophets anciently, even Enoch, and Abraham, and others: and therefore, it is my will that my servant Oliver Cowdery should open the meeting with prayer; that my servant W. W. Phelps should preach the discourse; and that my servants Joseph Coe and Ziba Peterson should bear testimony as they shall be moved by the Holy Spirit. This will be pleasing in the sight of your Lord.

      Verily I say unto you, ye are laying the foundation of a great work for the salvation of as many as will believe and repent, and obey the ordinances of the gospel, and continue faithful to the end: For, as I live, saith the Lord, so shall they live.

      Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

      Gird up your loins and be prepared for the mighty work of the Lord to prepare the world for my second coming to meet the tribes of Israel according to the predictions of all the holy prophets since the beginning; For the final desolation, and decrees upon Babylon: For, as the everlasting gospel is carried from this land, in love for peace, to gather mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, for Zion,— even so shall rebellion follow after speedily, with hatred for war until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all the kingdoms and nations that strive to govern themselves by the laws and precepts, and force and powers of men under the curse of sin, in all the world.

      Verily I say unto you, that the day of vexation and vengeance is nigh at the doors of this nation, when wicked, ungodly and daring men will rise up in wrath and might, and go forth in anger, like as the dust is driven by [a] terrible wind; and they will be the means of the destruction of the government, and cause the death and misery of man[y] souls, but the faithful among my people shall be preserved in holy places, during all these tribulations.

      Be patient, therefore, possessing your souls in peace and love, and keep the faith that is now delivered unto you for the gathering of scattered Israel, and lo, I am with you, though ye cannot see me, till I come: even so. Amen.

      Reported by W.W.P. [William W. Phelps]

http://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2008/07/08/on-the-origins-of-polygamy-or-what-did-joseph-know-and-when-did-he-know-it

Quote

 

In 1861 — thirty years later — Phelps wrote a letter to Brigham Young in which he revealed, word-for-word, a previously unknown revelation to Joseph, purportedly given 17 July 1831, proclaiming that the men in the group should eventually take Native American wives. The key portion of the document states:

Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

In a note appended below the revelation, Phelps explained:

About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph privately, how “we,” that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the “natives” — as we were all married men? He replied instantly “In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Katurah; and Jacob took Rachel Bilhah and Zilpah: by revelation — the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.”

Phelps’ letter is in the Church archives, and was eventually published in H. Michael Marquardt’s book, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

45 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Whether Joseph was a prophet of God or not isn't really the question. Joseph was caught, by Emma, in the barn with Fanny in what some have called a "compromising situation". We know that Emma was not pleased that Joseph was alone in the barn with their servant girl. The details are murky.

And by murky you mean completely unsubstantiated 3rd hand rumor almost 40 years after the fact.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger/Discovered_in_a_barn

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

. Joseph being a prophet does not mean that he was incapable of doing wrong. 

I never said  he was.  The question is still: Do you accept him as a prophet.  If you don't then all this makes a difference but if you do then it doesn't matter, it is between him and God.

[JulieM]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And by murky you mean completely unsubstantiated 3rd hand rumor almost 40 years after the fact.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger/Discovered_in_a_barn

Oh, I feel there's plenty of evidence (from other statements) that Joseph and Fanny were discovered, that Emma threw a fit (or "made such a fuss" according to Eliza R. Snow who witnessed it), and Fanny was thrown out (most likely in a pregnant state).  

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, ERayR said:

I never said  he was.  The question is still: Do you accept him as a prophet.  If you don't then all this makes a difference but if you do then it doesn't matter, it is between him and God.

That's why this is a huge issue and questions need to be asked.  Yes, we believe Prophets make mistakes.  But, how grevious a sin before one starts doubting.  This is affecting members who discover the truth. So yes, it is important as it did happen.  

Trying to understand what happened is also important because on the face of it, Joseph appears to have been fooling around with the servant girl behind Emma's back, got Fanny pregnant and then told her (and others) to claim they were actually married even though the sealing keys hadn't been restored and he already had a legal wife.

It may not matter to you, but it does to many who learn about this event.

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh, I feel there is plenty of evidence (from other statements) that Joseph and Fanny were discovered, that Emma through a fit (or "made such a fuss" according to Eliza R. Snow who witnessed it), and Fanny was thrown out (most likely in a pregnant state).  

I think there may well have been an incident in which Emma threw Fanny out (as per the "such a fuss" statement).

The pregnancy and barn statements are much more suspect, and have little to no corroborating evidence.  Both were given decades after the fact by bitter former members.  There is not "plenty of evidence" of either the pregnancy or the barn incident.
There is not a single piece of corroborating evidence of any pregnancy or barn incident contemporary to the time or from those without an agenda.

[JulieM]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Full Text of Revelation claimed to be given to the Saints during the "Mission to the Lamanites":

• 2. REVELATION RECEIVED WEST OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, ON 17 JULY 1831

      In July 1831 after the arrival of Joseph Smith, Jr., and others in Jackson County, Missouri, plans were made to preach to the Native Americans. Smith received a directive on intermarriage with the Indians. At a later date William W. Phelps wrote, evidently from memory, what he claimed was part or the substance of this revelation:
  Part — of a revelation by Joseph Smith Jun. given over the boundary, west of Jackson Co. Missouri, on Sunday morning, July 17, 1831, when Seven Elders, viz: Joseph Smith Jun. Oliver Cowdery, W.W. Phelps, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe, Ziba Peterson and Joshua Lewis united their hearts in prayer, in a private place, to inquire of the Lord who should preach the first sermon to the remnants of the Lamanites and Nephites, and the people of that Section, that should assemble that day in the Indian country, to hear the gospel, and the revelations according to the Book of Mormon.  Among the company, there being neither pen, ink or paper, Joseph [Smith, Jr.] remarked that the Lord could preserve his words as he had ever done, till the time appointed, and proceeded:

      Verily, verily, saith the Lord your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world, ye can not discerne [discern] with your natural eyes, the design and the purpose of your Lord and your God, in bringing you thus far into the wilderness for a trial of your faith, and to be especial witnesses, to bear testimony of this land, upon which the zion of God shall be built up in the last days, when it is redeemed.

      Verily, inasmuch as ye are united in calling upon my name to know my will concerning who shall preach to the inhabitants that shall assemble this day to learn what new doctrine you have to teach them, you have done wisely, for so did the prophets anciently, even Enoch, and Abraham, and others: and therefore, it is my will that my servant Oliver Cowdery should open the meeting with prayer; that my servant W. W. Phelps should preach the discourse; and that my servants Joseph Coe and Ziba Peterson should bear testimony as they shall be moved by the Holy Spirit. This will be pleasing in the sight of your Lord.

      Verily I say unto you, ye are laying the foundation of a great work for the salvation of as many as will believe and repent, and obey the ordinances of the gospel, and continue faithful to the end: For, as I live, saith the Lord, so shall they live.

      Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles. 

Wow.  I haven't read this before.

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think there may well have been an incident in which Emma threw Fanny out (as per the "such a fuss" statement).

The pregnancy and barn statements are much more suspect, and have little to no corroborating evidence.  Both were given decades after the fact by bitter former members.  There is not "plenty of evidence" of either the pregnancy or the barn incident.
There is not a single piece of corroborating evidence of any pregnancy or barn incident contemporary to the time or from those without an agenda.

Well, I think something upset Emma to the point of throwing Fanny out (someone she claimed to love as a daughter).  And Oliver was willing to lose his membership over how disgusted and upset he was over what he discovered.

There's as much or more evidence for this than there is for it being an actual marriage.

(And I stated that there was "plenty of evidence" that they were discovered and that Emma threw a fit and Fanny was thrown out...don't misquote me please.)

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

(And I stated that there was "plenty of evidence" that they were discovered and that Emma threw a fit and Fanny was thrown out...don't misquote me please.)

That wasn't my intent.  I apologize.  I just find the barn and pregnancy claims to be little more than rumor and gossip that all too often get presented as history.
And if she were his wife, why shouldn't she have a child with him?

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Wow.  I haven't read this before.

There are numerous uncanonized revelations.  If God actually gave them I think we should be more willing to study them.  Ignoring them seems a little ungrateful and offensive to God.

As for this one, people have questioned its authenticity, but everything about it fits with the timeline.
And considering the section header to D&C 132:

• Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.

What other evidence of Joseph's knowledge of plural marriage dates back as far as 1831?  I've always wondered if this is the evidence the Church is referring to.

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, Nevo said:

Yes.

I don't think that's a first hand account.  That is Eliza saying they were married many years later.  But it doesn't say she was witness to the ceremony or that they claimed to be married. 

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What other evidence of Joseph's knowledge of plural marriage dates back as far as 1831?  I've always wondered if this is the evidence the Church is referring to.

I think a lot of the 1831 date comes from questions Lyman Johnson asked him, and answers he received (it is a true principle, but not to be revealed broadly or openly at this time).

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That wasn't my intent.  I apologize.  I just find the barn and pregnancy claims to be little more than rumor and gossip that all too often get presented as history.
And if she were his wife, why shouldn't she have a child with him?

No problem.  I just wanted to make that clear.

I agree about the evidence for the barn discovery (but I do believe they were found out somehow by Emma for her to get so angry).  I think there's more for her being pregnant.  But all of it is sketchy and has to be pieced together.

[stemelbow]

What kind of marriage is conducted behind everyone's back, while the man is still married and then within a few months the wife leaves never to return?  Calling it a marriage disrespects the institute of marriage more than calling SSM marriage.  Of course that's not saying much because SSM is marriage, but I'm trying to speak the Mormon's language here. 

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think there may well have been an incident in which Emma threw Fanny out (as per the "such a fuss" statement).

The pregnancy and barn statements are much more suspect, and have little to no corroborating evidence.  Both were given decades after the fact by bitter former members.  There is not "plenty of evidence" of either the pregnancy or the barn incident.
There is not a single piece of corroborating evidence of any pregnancy or barn incident contemporary to the time or from those without an agenda.

I feel like there is often an assumption that "bitter former members" have an agenda and are untrustworthy, but true believers don't have an agenda and can be trusted. In reality both have an agenda that colors what they say. 

[JulieM]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There are numerous uncanonized revelations.  If God actually gave them I think we should be more willing to study them.  Ignoring them seems a little ungrateful and offensive to God.

As for this one, people have questioned its authenticity, but everything about it fits with the timeline.
And considering the section header to D&C 132:

• Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.

What other evidence of Joseph's knowledge of plural marriage dates back as far as 1831?  I've always wondered if this is the evidence the Church is referring to.

But what type of polygamy was this to be?  Was Abraham actually married or was he given the handmaiden, Hagar, by Sarah so he could have a child (maybe that was considered marriage back then?). 

If this revelation is accurate (related 30 years later from memory by W. W. Phelps), it states they were to marry Indian women to raise up posterity to be "white and delightsome".   That sounds similar to why Hagar was given to Abraham.

But that revelation is fascinating to read through!  Thanks for posting it.

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[provoman]

On 2/27/2017 at 4:08 PM, JulieM said:

I'm starting another thread because again, I don't want to take others off topic.

I remember reading some of JLHPROF's opinions on this some time ago, but would like other's input or beliefs too as this is a difficult issue for me.  (I would also welcome any views from JLHPROF as always too.)

Since Joseph hadn't received the sealing keys yet, he and Fanny's marriage wasn't a sealing.  (At least officially.)

And, it couldn't be a legal marriage.

So, what are your views regarding what type of marriage Joseph intended it to be?

What was the ceremony like?

Also, JLHPROF, you posted you were looking for sealing records for Fanny and Joseph (done after the keys were restored via proxy or in person).  I'm very interested in knowing what you find!

 

When did Joseph Smith receive the Priesthood?  

What is the law of the priesthood (which is distinct from the new and everlasting covenant) as described in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants starting in verse 58?

Sealing keys aside, The Law of the Priesthood may have been known/taught as early as 1831. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by provoman

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

When did Joseph Smith receive the Priesthood?  

What is the law of the priesthood (which is distinct from the new and everlasting covenant) as described in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants starting in verse 58?

While the sealing keys were not restored until a later date, The Law of the Priesthood may have been known/taught as early as 1831. 

Yes, and if there was a marriage, it may have been performed by Levi Hancock with the power of the priesthood. 

But it wouldn't have been a sealing or a legal marriage.

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yes, and if there was a marriage, it may have been performed by Levi Hancock with the power of the priesthood. 

But it wouldn't have been a sealing or a legal marriage.

Not as we understand it, but God can authorize ordinances outside of our understanding (and current canon). 

Some examples that come to mind are with baptism: Adam was baptized by the Holy Ghost, it appears, and Alma dipped himself in the water along with Helam before baptizing the others at the waters of Mormon. Many other examples of unorthodox, but valid, ordinances could be mentioned. 

This is admittedly a weak defense, but I think it should be mentioned as a possibility that God instructed him to seal himself to her. Even before the sealing keys were restored. That wouldn't be my primary defense of this, but I also don't personally believe that it was an affair that he tried to cover up with later developments in doctrine and ordinances.

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not as we understand it, but God can authorize ordinances outside of our understanding (and current canon). 

Some examples that come to mind are with baptism: Adam was baptized by the Holy Ghost, it appears, and Alma dipped himself in the water along with Helam before baptizing the others at the waters of Mormon. Many other examples of unorthodox, but valid, ordinances could be mentioned. 

This is admittedly a weak defense, but I think it should be mentioned as a possibility that God instructed him to seal himself to her. Even before the sealing keys were restored. That wouldn't be my primary defense of this, but I also don't personally believe that it was an affair that he tried to cover up with later developments in doctrine and ordinances.

Possibly.  But I see both Emma's reaction (when they were discovered) and Oliver's strong reaction (willing to be excommunicated and leave the church over it) as pretty strong evidence this was more an affair (portrayed as a marriage after the fact) than any type of marriage.  This is also evidence that he didn't get Emma's permission, IMO (her reaction and her throwing Fanny out).  But we can't know that for sure, of course.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[Alan]

What type of marriage was Joseph's and Fanny Alger's?

This is easy to answer: non-existent.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Possibly.  But I see both Emma's reaction (when they were discovered) and Oliver's strong reaction (willing to be excommunicated and leave the church over it) as pretty strong evidence this was more an affair (portrayed as a marriage after the fact) than any type of marriage.  This is also evidence that he didn't get Emma's permission, IMO (her reaction and her throwing Fanny out).  But we can't know that for sure, of course.

Emma, of course, vacillated many times during the polygamous marriages --- alternating between rejection and acceptance. With the Partridge sisters, this whiplash acceptance was rejected in a matter of weeks. It was hard on her, to say the least, but her inconsistency on this was a contributing factor to the conflict. I'm not sure that her reaction to Fanny Alger is any more evidence of an affair than her reaction to later ones. 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Alan said:

What type of marriage was Joseph's and Fanny Alger's?

This is easy to answer: non-existent.

The evidence that Joseph had many wives is incontrovertible at this point.  All we are doing is determining to the best of our abilities the methodology of the marriages and which women were his wives.  The jury is still out on Fanny, but the Church must have thought she was his wife - they sealed her to him by proxy.

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Alan said:

What type of marriage was Joseph's and Fanny Alger's?

This is easy to answer: non-existent.

So what do you believe their relationship was?